Dataset Information

Poor Quality for Poor Women? Inequities in the Quality of Antenatal and Delivery Care in Kenya.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quality of healthcare is an important determinant of future progress in global health. However, the distributional aspects of quality of care have received inadequate attention. We assessed whether high quality maternal care is equitably distributed by (1) mapping the quality of maternal care in facilities located in poorer versus wealthier areas of Kenya; and (2) comparing the quality of maternal care available to Kenyans in and not in poverty.

Methods

We assessed three measures of maternal care quality: facility infrastructure and clinical quality of antenatal care and delivery care, using indicators from the 2010 Kenya Service Provision Assessment (SPA), a standardized facility survey with direct observation of maternal care provision. We calculated poverty of the area served by antenatal or delivery care facilities using the Multidimensional Poverty Index. We used regression analyses and non-parametric tests to assess differences in maternal care quality in facilities located in more and less impoverished areas. We estimated effective coverage with a minimum standard of care for the full population and those in poverty.

Results

A total of 564 facilities offering at least one maternal care service were included in this analysis. Quality of maternal care was low, particularly clinical quality of antenatal and delivery care, which averaged 0.52 and 0.58 out of 1 respectively, compared to 0.68 for structural inputs to care. Maternal healthcare quality varied by poverty level: at the facility level, all quality metrics were lowest for the most impoverished areas and increased significantly with greater wealth. Population access to a minimum standard (?0.75 of 1.00) of quality maternal care was both low and inequitable: only 17% of all women and 8% of impoverished women had access to minimally adequate delivery care.

Conclusion

The quality of maternal care is low in Kenya, and care available to the impoverished is significantly worse than that for the better off. To achieve the national targets of maternal and neonatal mortality reduction, policy initiatives need to tackle low quality of care, starting with high-poverty areas.

SUBMITTER: Sharma J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5283741 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Poor Quality for Poor Women? Inequities in the Quality of Antenatal and Delivery Care in Kenya.

Sharma Jigyasa J Leslie Hannah H HH Kundu Francis F Kruk Margaret E ME

PloS one 20170131 1

<h4>Background</h4>Quality of healthcare is an important determinant of future progress in global health. However, the distributional aspects of quality of care have received inadequate attention. We assessed whether high quality maternal care is equitably distributed by (1) mapping the quality of maternal care in facilities located in poorer versus wealthier areas of Kenya; and (2) comparing the quality of maternal care available to Kenyans in and not in poverty.<h4>Methods</h4>We assessed thre ...[more]

PMID: 28141840

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Low quality and frequency of antenatal care (ANC) are associated with lower uptake of facility-based deliveries-a key intervention to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. We implemented group ANC (G-ANC), an alternative service delivery model, in Kenya and Nigeria, to assess its impact on quality and attendance at ANC and uptake of facility-based delivery. METHODS:From October 2016‒January 2018, we conducted a facility-based, pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 20 clusters per country. We recruited women <24 weeks gestation during their first ANC visit and enrolled women at intervention facilities who agreed to attend G-ANC in lieu of routine individual ANC. The G-ANC model consisted of five monthly 2-hour meetings with clinical assessments alongside structured gestationally specific group discussions and activities. Quality of care was defined as receipt of eight specific ANC interventions. Data were obtained through facility records and self-report during a home-based postpartum survey. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS:All women who completed follow up are included in the analysis (Nigeria: 1018/1075 enrolled women [94.7%], Kenya: 826/1013 [81.5%]). In Nigeria women in the intervention arm were more likely to have a facility-based delivery compared to those in the control arm (Nigeria: 76.7% [391/510] versus 54.1% [275/508]; aOR 2.30, CI 1.51-3.49). In both countries women in the intervention arm were more likely than those in the control arm to receive quality ANC (Nigeria: aOR 5.8, CI 1.98-17.21, p<0.001; Kenya: aOR 5.08, CI 2.31-11.16, p<0.001) and to attend at least four ANC visits (Nigeria: aOR 13.30, CI 7.69-22.99, p<0.001; Kenya: aOR 7.12, CI 3.91-12.97, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:G-ANC was associated with higher facility-based delivery rates in Nigeria, where those rates associated with individual ANC were low. In both Kenya and Nigeria it was associated with a higher proportion of women receiving quality ANC and higher frequency of ANC visits.

Project description:BackgroundAntenatal care (ANC) is an essential platform to improve maternal and newborn health (MNH). While several articles have described the content of ANC in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), few have investigated the quality of detection and management of pregnancy risk factors during ANC. It remains unclear whether women with pregnancy risk factors receive targeted management and additional ANC.Methods and findingsThis observational study uses baseline data from the MNH eCohort study conducted in 8 sites in Ethiopia, India, Kenya, and South Africa from April 2023 to January 2024. A total of 4,068 pregnant women seeking ANC for the first time in their pregnancy were surveyed. We built country-specific ANC completeness indices that measured provision of 16 to 22 recommended clinical actions in 5 domains: physical examinations, diagnostic tests, history taking and screening, counselling, and treatment and prevention. We investigated whether women with pregnancy risks tended to receive higher quality care and we assessed the quality of detection and management of 7 concurrent illnesses and pregnancy risk factors (anemia, undernutrition, obesity, chronic illnesses, depression, prior obstetric complications, and danger signs). ANC completeness ranged from 43% in Ethiopia, 66% in Kenya, 73% in India, and 76% in South Africa, with large gaps in history taking, screening, and counselling. Most women in Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa initiated ANC in second or third trimesters. We used country-specific multivariable mixed-effects linear regression models to investigate factors associated with ANC completeness. Models included individual demographics, health status, presence of risk factors, health facility characteristics, and fixed effects for the study site. We found that some facility characteristics (staffing, patient volume, structural readiness) were associated with variation in ANC completeness. In contrast, pregnancy risk factors were only associated with a 1.7 percentage points increase in ANC completeness (95% confidence interval 0.3, 3.0, p-value 0.014) in Kenya only. Poor self-reported health was associated with higher ANC completeness in India and South Africa and with lower ANC completeness in Ethiopia. Some concurrent illnesses and risk factors were overlooked during the ANC visit. Between 0% and 6% of undernourished women were prescribed food supplementation and only 1% to 3% of women with depression were referred to a mental health provider or prescribed antidepressants. Only 36% to 73% of women who had previously experienced an obstetric complication (a miscarriage, preterm birth, stillbirth, or newborn death) discussed their obstetric history with the provider during the first ANC visit. Although we aimed to validate self-reported information on health status and content of care with data from health cards, our findings may be affected by recall or other information biases.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed gaps in adherence to ANC standards, particularly for women in need of specialized management. Strategies to maximize the potential health benefits of ANC should target women at risk of poor pregnancy outcomes and improve early initiation of ANC in the first trimester.

Project description:ImportanceWomen who experience imprisonment have high morbidity and an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Antenatal care could modify pregnancy-related risks, but there is a lack of evidence regarding antenatal care in this population.ObjectivesTo examine antenatal care quality indicators for women who experience imprisonment and to compare these data with data for the general population.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based, retrospective cohort study used linked correctional and health administrative data from women released from provincial prison in Ontario, Canada, in 2010 and women in the general population with deliveries at 20 weeks' gestation or greater from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2017, to May 4, 2020.ExposuresPregnancies in women with time in prison during pregnancy (prison pregnancies), pregnancies in women with time in prison but not while pregnant (prison control pregnancies), and pregnancies in women in the general population (general population pregnancies).Main outcomes and measuresAntenatal care quality indicators: first-trimester visit, first-trimester ultrasonography, and 8 or more antenatal care visits.ResultsA total of 626 prison pregnancies in 529 women (mean [SD] age, 26.6 [5.4] years), 2327 prison control pregnancies in 1570 women (mean [SD] age, 26.2 [5.4] years), and 1 308 879 general population pregnancies in 884 063 women (mean [SD] age, 30.3 [5.3] years) were studied. Of 626 prison pregnancies, 193 women (30.8%; 95% CI, 27.1%-34.6%) had a first-trimester visit, 272 (48.4%; 95% CI, 44.4%-52.4%) had at least 8 antenatal care visits, and 209 (34.6%; 95% CI, 31.0%-38.4%) received first-trimester ultrasonography. In 2327 prison control pregnancies, 1106 women (47.5%; 95% CI, 45.3%-49.8%) had a first-trimester visit, 1356 (59.2%; 95% CI, 56.9%-61.4%) had 8 or more antenatal care visits, and 893 (38.5%; 95% CI, 36.4%-40.6%) received first-trimester ultrasonography. Compared with 1 308 879 general population pregnancies, the odds of antenatal care were lower for the first-trimester visit (odds ratios [ORs], 0.11 [95% CI, 0.09-0.13] in prison pregnancies and 0.23 [95% CI, 0.21-0.25] in prison control pregnancies), 8 or more antenatal care visits (ORs, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.14-0.19] in prison pregnancies and 0.25 [95% CI, 0.23-0.28] in prison control pregnancies), and first-trimester ultrasonography (ORs, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.36-0.50] in prison pregnancies and 0.51 [95% CI, 0.46-0.55] in prison control pregnancies).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that women who experienced imprisonment were substantially less likely to receive adequate antenatal care than were women in the general population whether or not they were in prison during pregnancy. Efforts are needed to improve antenatal care for this population both in prison and in the community.

Project description:BackgroundPregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) experience the highest levels of maternal mortality and stillbirths due to predominantly avoidable causes. Antenatal care (ANC) can prevent, detect, alleviate, or manage these causes. While eight ANC contacts are now recommended, coverage of the previous minimum of four visits (ANC4+) remains low and inequitable in SSA.MethodsWe modelled ANC4+ coverage and likelihood of attaining district-level target coverage of 70% across three equity stratifiers (household wealth, maternal education, and travel time to the nearest health facility) based on data from malaria indicator surveys in Kenya (2020), Uganda (2018/19) and Tanzania (2017). Geostatistical models were fitted to predict ANC4+ coverage and compute exceedance probability for target coverage. The number of pregnant women without ANC4+ were computed. Prediction was at 3 km spatial resolution and aggregated at national and district -level for sub-national planning.ResultsAbout six in ten women reported ANC4+ visits, meaning that approximately 3 million women in the three countries had <ANC4+ visits. The majority of the 366 districts in the three countries had ANC4+ coverage of 50-70%. In Kenya, 13% of districts had < 70% coverage, compared to 10% and 27% of the districts in Uganda and mainland Tanzania, respectively. Only one district in Kenya and ten districts in mainland Tanzania were likely met the target coverage. Six percent, 38%, and 50% of the districts had at most 5000 women with <ANC4+ visits in Kenya, Uganda, and mainland Tanzania, respectively, while districts with > 20,000 women having <ANC4+ visits were 38%, 1% and 1%, respectively. In many districts, ANC4+ coverage and likelihood of attaining the target coverage was lower among the poor, uneducated and those geographically marginalized from healthcare.ConclusionsThese findings will be invaluable to policymakers for annual appropriations of resources as part of efforts to reduce maternal deaths and stillbirths.

Project description:The majority of women in sub-Saharan Africa now deliver in a facility, however, little is known about the quality of services for maternal and newborn basic and emergency care, nor how this is associated with patient's perception of their experiences.Using data from the Service Provision Assessment (SPA) survey from Kenya 2010 and Namibia 2009, we explore whether facilities have the necessary signal functions for providing emergency and basic maternal (EmOC) and newborn care (EmNC), and antenatal care (ANC) using descriptives and multivariate regression. We explore differences by type of facility (hospital, center or other) and by private and public facilities. Finally, we see if patient satisfaction (taken from exit surveys at antenatal care) is associated with the quality of services (specific services provided).We find that most facilities do not have all of the signal functions, with 46 and 27 % in Kenya and 18 and 5 % in Namibia of facilities have high/basic scores in routine and emergency obstetric care, respectively. We found that hospitals preform better than centers in general and few differences emerged between public and private facilities. Patient perceptions were not consistently associated with services provided; however, patients had fewer complaints in private compared to public facilities in Kenya (-0.46 fewer complaints in private) and smaller facilities compared to larger in Namibia (-0.26 fewer complaints in smaller facilities). Service quality itself (measured in scores), however, was only significantly better in Kenya for EmOC and EmNC.This analysis sheds light on the inadequate levels of care for saving maternal and newborn lives in most facilities in two countries of Africa. It also highlights the disconnect between patients' perceptions and clinical quality of services. More effort is needed to ensure that high quality supply of services is present to meet growing demand as an increasing number of women deliver in facilities.

Project description:BackgroundAntenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care involves use of a group model.Objectives1. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on psychosocial, physiological, labour and birth outcomes for women and their babies.2. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on care provider satisfaction.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies.Selection criteriaAll identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, and one has been included. Cross-over trials were not eligible.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data; all review authors checked data for accuracy.Main resultsWe included four studies (2350 women). The overall risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as acceptable in two studies and good in two studies. No statistically significant differences were observed between women who received group antenatal care and those given standard individual antenatal care for the primary outcome of preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.00; three trials; N = 1888). The proportion of low-birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.23; three trials; N = 1935). No group differences were noted for the primary outcomes small-for-gestational age (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24; two trials; N = 1473) and perinatal mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; three trials; N = 1943).Satisfaction was rated as high among women who were allocated to group antenatal care, but this outcome was measured in only one trial. In this trial, mean satisfaction with care in the group given antenatal care was almost five times greater than that reported by those allocated to standard care (mean difference 4.90, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.70; one study; N = 993). No differences in neonatal intensive care admission, initiation of breastfeeding or spontaneous vaginal birth were observed between groups. Several outcomes related to stress and depression were reported in one trial. No differences between groups were observed for any of these outcomes.No data were available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction.We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess evidence for seven prespecified outcomes; results ranged from low quality (perinatal mortality) to moderate quality (preterm birth, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding initiation) to high quality (satisfaction with antenatal care, spontaneous vaginal birth).Authors' conclusionsAvailable evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42% of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.

Dataset Information

Poor Quality for Poor Women? Inequities in the Quality of Antenatal and Delivery Care in Kenya.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Poor Quality for Poor Women? Inequities in the Quality of Antenatal and Delivery Care in Kenya.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets